Abstract

The 95% CL lower limits on the effective unparticle cut off scaleΛU for a fixed coupling λ = 1. The results from the CMS monojet [1] and mono-Z [2] searches, as well as a reinterpretation of LEP and CDF searches [3] are shown for comparison. The LEP results assume a coupling of unparticles to Z bosons and photons. The CDF (CMS) monojet result is based on a gluonunparticle coupling operator (gluon- and quark-unparticle coupling operators). The inset compares the expected and observed limits for the CMS mono-Z analyses at p √s = 8 and 13TeV. Note that the cutoff scalesΛU for different operators do not have to be identical. Consequently, the comparison shown here with the results other than the CMS 8TeV mono-Z analysis is only qualitative. In the original paper, figure 10 was incorrect. The correct figure is shown above.

abstract = "The 95{\%} CL lower limits on the effective unparticle cut off scaleΛU for a fixed coupling λ = 1. The results from the CMS monojet [1] and mono-Z [2] searches, as well as a reinterpretation of LEP and CDF searches [3] are shown for comparison. The LEP results assume a coupling of unparticles to Z bosons and photons. The CDF (CMS) monojet result is based on a gluonunparticle coupling operator (gluon- and quark-unparticle coupling operators). The inset compares the expected and observed limits for the CMS mono-Z analyses at p √s = 8 and 13TeV. Note that the cutoff scalesΛU for different operators do not have to be identical. Consequently, the comparison shown here with the results other than the CMS 8TeV mono-Z analysis is only qualitative. In the original paper, figure 10 was incorrect. The correct figure is shown above.",

author = "{The Cms Collaboration} and Sirunyan, {A. M.} and A. Tumasyan and W. Adam and E. Asilar and T. Bergauer and J. Brandstetter and E. Brondolin and M. Dragicevic and J. Er{\"o} and M. Flechl and M. Friedl and R. Fr{\"u}hwirth and Ghete, {V. M.} and C. Hartl and N. H{\"o}rmann and J. Hrubec and M. Jeitler and A. K{\"o}nig and I. Kr{\"a}tschmer and D. Liko and T. Matsushita and I. Mikulec and D. Rabady and N. Rad and B. Rahbaran and H. Rohringer and J. Schieck and J. Strauss and W. Waltenberger and Wulz, {C. E.} and V. Chekhovsky and O. Dvornikov and Y. Dydyshka and I. Emeliantchik and A. Litomin and V. Makarenko and V. Mossolov and R. Stefanovitch and {Suarez Gonzalez}, J. and V. Zykunov and N. Shumeiko and S. Alderweireldt and John Chou and Yuri Gershtein and Eva Halkiadakis and Amitabh Lath and Sevil Salur and Stephen Schnetzer and Sunil Somalwar and Scott Thomas and {De Wolf}, {E. A.} and X. Janssen and J. Lauwers and {Van De Klundert}, M. and {Van Haevermaet}, H. and Marlow, {Daniel Robert} and Olsen, {James D.} and Tully, {Christopher George}",

N2 - The 95% CL lower limits on the effective unparticle cut off scaleΛU for a fixed coupling λ = 1. The results from the CMS monojet [1] and mono-Z [2] searches, as well as a reinterpretation of LEP and CDF searches [3] are shown for comparison. The LEP results assume a coupling of unparticles to Z bosons and photons. The CDF (CMS) monojet result is based on a gluonunparticle coupling operator (gluon- and quark-unparticle coupling operators). The inset compares the expected and observed limits for the CMS mono-Z analyses at p √s = 8 and 13TeV. Note that the cutoff scalesΛU for different operators do not have to be identical. Consequently, the comparison shown here with the results other than the CMS 8TeV mono-Z analysis is only qualitative. In the original paper, figure 10 was incorrect. The correct figure is shown above.

AB - The 95% CL lower limits on the effective unparticle cut off scaleΛU for a fixed coupling λ = 1. The results from the CMS monojet [1] and mono-Z [2] searches, as well as a reinterpretation of LEP and CDF searches [3] are shown for comparison. The LEP results assume a coupling of unparticles to Z bosons and photons. The CDF (CMS) monojet result is based on a gluonunparticle coupling operator (gluon- and quark-unparticle coupling operators). The inset compares the expected and observed limits for the CMS mono-Z analyses at p √s = 8 and 13TeV. Note that the cutoff scalesΛU for different operators do not have to be identical. Consequently, the comparison shown here with the results other than the CMS 8TeV mono-Z analysis is only qualitative. In the original paper, figure 10 was incorrect. The correct figure is shown above.